Dismissed

B Uma Aheswara Rao v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Mar 2021CRLP/262/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court examined the grounds to quash FIR proceedings. The Court held that the allegations prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and were not absurd or mala fide, thus dismissing the petition to allow investigation to conclude.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR proceedings is dismissed.

B Uma Aheswara Rao Vs State of Ap — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 262 of 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-A1 seeks to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No.20 of 2020 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered against him and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 506, 188 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 32 of the Indian Police Act, 1861.

¶4

2. The complainant is the S.I. of Police, Machavaram Police Station. The contents in the complaint are that on 07.01.2020 while he was on duty, the S.H.O. of Machavaram Police Station, received information that some leaders from Telegu Desam Party and their associates were going to conduct dharna on the National Highway against the decision of the Government to shift the capital of Andhra Pradesh from Amaravati to Visakhapatnam and therefore, the S.H.O. instructed him and P.Cs 2187 and 3606 and a Home Guard to go to the house of the petitioner-A1, who is the ex-MLA of TDP of Central Constituency, and to inform that proceedings under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 30 of the Indian Police Act were proclaimed in the complaint mentioned areas of Vijayawada city and therefore, none should conduct any rastarokos or rallies or dharnas on the National Highway causing obstruction to Government activities. On such instructions, the complainant along with other police personnel went to the residence of the petitioner-A1 and issued notices to him and other accused. However, they refused to receive the notices and fiercely proclaimed that they would proceed with dharna and flung the notices on the police. Further, at about

¶5

¶6

UDPR,J Crl.P.No.262 of 2020

¶7

1.00 p.m. on that day, the petitioner-A1 along with his associates came on to the road by holding placards making shouts. When the complainant and his staff tried to prevent them, all the accused did not pay heed to their words and on the other hand, the accused pushed them and abused them in filthy language and obstructed them from discharging the public duties and threatened them. Hence the complaint.

¶8

Heard Sri M.L. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner-A1, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶9

Denying the complaint allegations as false to the core, learned counsel for the petitioner-A1 argued that a false case was registered against the petitioner-A1 and other accused, as they happened to be the members of opposition party. It is further argued that the petitioner-A1 has not committed any atrocious acts as alleged in the complaint. On the other hand, he politely received the notice issued by the complainant. When the complainant wanted to illegally trespass into the house of the petitioner-A1, he only restrained him from entering into the house saying that women and elders were inside the house. Further, when the petitioner-A1 was proceeding on his personal work, the police unnecessarily restrained him, in spite of his request that he was proceeding on his personal work, and booked the false case against him and other accused. Learned counsel thus prayed to allow the criminal petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A1 in the FIR.

¶10

¶11

UDPR,J Crl.P.No.262 of 2020

¶12

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition saying that the high handed acts of the petitioner-A1 and other accused are writ large from the complaint allegations and the truth or falsity of the allegations can be decided only after a thorough investigation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶13

The point for consideration is, whether there are any merits in the Criminal Petition to allow?

¶14

POINT: To exercise the plenary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings, certain principles have been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others¹ . They are:

¶15

“1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶16

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶17

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶18

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation

¶19

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶20

¶21

UDPR,J Crl.P.No.262 of 2020

¶22

is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶23

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶24

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶25

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶26

Thus, as per Guideline No.1, even if the allegations in the FIR or complaint were taken to be true at their face value and they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, then the Court can exercise its plenary jurisdiction to quash the FIR.

¶27

a) Similarly, as per Guideline No.2, when the allegations in the FIR and other material do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation by the Police Officers under Section 156 (1) of Cr.P.C. except under an order of Magistrate as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, then also, the FIR can be quashed.

¶28

b) So also, as per Guideline No.3, where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of

¶29

¶30

UDPR,J Crl.P.No.262 of 2020

¶31

any offence and make out a case against the accused, such FIR can be quashed.

¶32

c) Guideline No.4 would depict that where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncongizable offence, no investigation is permissible by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., in such instance, the FIR can be quashed.

¶33

d) Guideline No.5 says that where the allegations in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which, no prudent person can come to a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, in such cases also, FIR or complaint can be quashed.

¶34

e) Guideline No.6 would depict that where there exists an express legal bar in any of the provisions of Cr.P.C. or the concerned Act to the institution and continuation of the proceedings or where there is a specific provision in the Cr.P.C. or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party, in such instance also, the FIR can be quashed.

¶35

f) Guideline No.7 would manifest that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudges, in such instance also, the FIR can be ordered to be quashed.

¶36

¶37

UDPR,J Crl.P.No.262 of 2020

¶38

When the present FIR is tested on the anvil of above guidelines, it must be said, none of them are satisfied to quash the FIR. When the allegations in the FIR are un-controverted, they disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is to be mentioned that the offences under Sections 353 and 188 of IPC are cognizable in nature. The allegations cannot be said to be absurd or inherently improbable to quash the FIR at the inception stage. The petitioner-A1 contends that the FIR was registered with all false allegations as the petitioner-A1 and other accused happen to be the members of opposition party. However, at this infant stage, the FIR cannot be quashed on that ground. The investigation shall be allowed to reach its logical end to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations. Therefore, I find no valid grounds and cogent reasons to quash the FIR.

¶39